By the Court.—We have heard Mr. Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Vishnu Srivastava, who has filed Vakalatnama today for the respondent. We have also perused the record of Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 261 of 2014 filed by Kasifa Farog alias Sonal Jain.

This is an appeal under 43 Rule 1 CPC against the interim injunction dated 12.11.2014, passed by the Family Court, Bahraich in regular suit No. 2527 of 2014.

2. The respondent Khan Farogh Azam filed a regular suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent has claimed following reliefs :

nQk 18 & ;g fd oknh fuEufyf[kr nknjlh ikus dk eq'rgd gS] iznku dh tkos %&

v& ;g fd fMdzh :[klrh cgd oknh f[kykQ izfroknuh la01 bl vk'k; dh lkfnj QjekbZ tkos vkSj izfroknuh la01 dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkos fd og oknh ds lkFk oknh ds edku lkfdu eksgYyk lykjxat ijxuk o rglhy o 'kgj cgjkbp esa jgdj oknh ds lkFk fonk gksdj gd tkSft;r vnk djs A

c & fMdzh gqdqe bfErukbZ nokeh cgd oknh f[kykQ izfroknh la02 bl vk'k; dh lkfnj QjekbZ tkos fd izfroknh la02] izfroknuh la01 dh fonkbZ gejkg oknh esa o oknh ds edku ij izfroknuh la01 ds jgus esa rFkk izfroknuh la01 }kjk oknh dks gd tkSft;r dh vnk;xh esa fdlh izdkj ls fo?u o ck/kk o O;o/kku u Mkys vkSj u gh izfroknh la02] izfroknuh la01 dh ‘kknh fdlh vU; O;fDr ls djs vkSj oknh dk rykd izfroknuh la01 ls u djk;s A

l& [kpkZ eqdnek oknh dks izfroknhx.k ls fnyk;k tkos A

n & nhxj nknjlh tks djhu bUlkQ vnky; gks cgd oknh f[kykQ izfroknhx.k lkfnj QjekbZ tkos

3. It appears that at the presentation stage, the Family Court, Bahraich has passed the impugned order dated 12.11.2014 granting injunction whereby the appellant No. 2 has been restrained from solemnising marriage of appellant No. 1 from any person whosoever and also not create any hindrance.

4. While assailing the impugned order, it has been submitted by the appellants’ counsel that on the one hand, the respondent has filed a Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 261 of 2014, on the other hand also filed Regular Suit No. 2527 of 2014 for restitution of conjugal rights in the Family Court, Bahraich. It has been submitted that no marriage was solemnised between the appellant No. 1 and the respondent and whatever has been done, it is the outcome of fraud committed by the respondent. It is further submitted that the respondent runs an institution of computer education where the appellant No. 1 used to visit and undergo computer training. It is also submitted that the appellant has been defrauded and no religious conversion took place as alleged by the respondent while preferring the Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 261 of 2014. Supplementing his argument, the appellants’ counsel submits that the appellants are Jain by religion and there is no documentary evidence to show that the appellant No. 1 was converted to Islam. Further submission of the appellants’ counsel is that merely on the basis of the averments contained in the plaint and without inviting any objections from the appellants as well as without ensuring their presence, the injunction amounting to final relief has been granted which should not have been done by the Family Court, Bahraich.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Vishnu Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that conversion from Janism to Muslim took place on 22.1.2014 whereas Nikah took place on 24.1.2014. A perusal of Nikahnama filed alongwith the Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 261 of 2014 shows that the name of the appellant No. 1 has been shown as Kasifa Farog as well as Sonal Jain (in bracket). On a query being made by this Court as to how and in what manner, conversion from Jainism to Muslim took place, learned counsel for the respondent submits that this was done orally and there is no other documentary evidence which may indicate conversion from Jainism to Muslim.

6. However, the fact remains that in the Nikahnama, the original name of Sonal Jain has also been indicated. It is trite law that for the grant of injunc